Let's talk about the DRS

[nballa]

well elton chupakabra was given out so the decision stays.

[cowboysfan]

its fine if ball is hitting leg or off' date=' or even just clipping balls, then we can say there is doubt/error. But what if ball is hitting freaking middle of middle stump..What then? What doubt is there??[/quote'] exactly.this gives the umpire too much leeway and they will use it as a carte blanche and never change their decision.There was no question that Bell was out,the idiot showman umpire didnt want to change his decision.

[DomainK]

exactly.this gives the umpire too much leeway and they will use it as a carte blanche and never change their decision.There was no question that Bell was out' date='the idiot showman umpire didnt want to change his decision.[/quote'] I think some of the umpires are working in vengeance. They don't like it when someone challenges their decisions and set off on an ego trip. Since it looks bad on them when a decision is reversed, they stick to their decision out of sheer vindictiveness. They need to leave that ego behind because their job is to selflessly conduct the game in a fair way as far as possible. That ego needs to go out of the window. UDRS is an attempt at making the game fair, not a war between captains and umpires.

[Sachin=GOD]

I think some of the umpires are working in vengeance. They don't like it when someone challenges their decisions and set off on an ego trip. Since it looks bad on them when a decision is reversed' date=' they stick to their decision out of sheer vindictiveness. They need to leave that ego behind because their job is to selflessly conduct the game in a fair way as far as possible. That ego needs to go out of the window. UDRS is an attempt at making the game fair, not a war between captains and umpires.[/quote'] The 3rd umpire should be given the power to overturn decisions instead of merely suggesting whether its out or not to the on filed umpires. This way once a decision has been reviewd by players, the on field umpires won't have any power to use their discretion.

[The Outsider]

Is there a write up on why this technology loses it's accuracy in Cricket specifically when compared to other sport like Tennis where it is used without any extra BS?

In which other sport is the predictive part of Hawk Eye used? There is no 'extra BS' even in cricket regarding the actual event part - did the ball pitch in line, did it hit in line etc.

[Raghav_12]

There was no inconsistency in both the decisions. In both cases, UDRS could not overturn the decision as impact was beyond 2.5 m and as per rules if it is more the 2.5 m, UDRS verdict is void and on-field umpires decision stays whatever that was (Out or Not Out) irrespective whether that was right or wrong. Actually most of the people are making mistake in understanding basic purpose of UDRS. This whole system is just to Review UMPIRE's DECISIONS, instead of giving decisions independently. And after review, it overturns umpires decisions, only if there is SUFFICIENT evidence to do so. Take it this way that it looks at all evidences available and decides whether based on evidences they can go and tell umpires that you made a mistake and we gonna change that. Using technology to give decisions independently and using it to overturn umpires decisions are two entirely different things.

[Raghav_12]

In which other sport is the predictive part of Hawk Eye used? There is no 'extra BS' even in cricket regarding the actual event part - did the ball pitch in line' date=' did it hit in line etc.[/quote'] I disagree with that, in cricket they are using predictive power of technology, which I don't agree with. However they are using predictive power only in case of certain conditions where reliability of predictions is high, but they still using Hawk Eye to predict whether that was going to hit stump or not. This is some area where ICCitself seems to be confused.

[cowboysfan]

why do they need to go with the charade of using the UDRS at all if the ball hits the batsman outside 2.5m?.The 3rd umpire can tell the on filed umpire that its over 2.5m(and not a no ball) and the umpire will not change his decision.Its save a lot of time and the audience dont have to go on an emotional rollercoaster with this charade.

[Raghav_12]

why do they need to go with the charade of using the UDRS at all if the ball hits the batsman outside 2.5m?.The 3rd umpire can tell the on filed umpire that its over 2.5m(and not a no ball) and the umpire will not change his decision.Its save a lot of time and the audience dont have to go on an emotional rollercoaster with this charade.

That's a valid point but I don't think that on-field umpire would ever know precisely whether it was 2.4 m or 2.6 m. Rather UDRS first check whether they are elgible to review umpire in given case or not. If found out to be NOT, they should stop at that moment, instead of showing what their decision would have been, had it hit 20 cms towards stumps.

[The Outsider]

I disagree with that' date=' in cricket they are using predictive power of technology, which I don't agree with. However they are using predictive power only in case of certain conditions where reliability of predictions is high, but they still using Hawk Eye to predict whether that was going to hit stump or not. This is some area where ICCitself seems to be confused.[/quote'] I think I was saying the same thing - that cricket is the only sport I know of where the predictive part of Hawk Eye is used, thus the need for this 2.5 meter cutoff beyond which Hawk Eye is supposedly not reliable.

[Raghav_12]

I think I was saying the same thing - that cricket is the only sport I know of where the predictive part of Hawk Eye is used' date=' thus the need for this 2.5 meter cutoff beyond which Hawk Eye is supposedly not reliable.[/quote'] Oh sorry then.. I misunderstood your point.

[Mariyam]

Vettori to Chigumbura, OUT, Captain gets captain first ball. Or has he? Elton reviews a potentially controversial lbw decision. Tossed up on middle, back of a length and it straightens. Here's the catch - Elton has charged a mile out of his crease. Ok, may be not a mile, but 2.5 metres for sure. The replays say it pitched on the line of the stumps, hit in front of middle as Elton misses the chip to the leg side. The potentially questionable predictive powers of Hawk-Eye (since he was well out of the crease) say it was hitting leg stump. It is back to umpire Erasmus, and he, like Billy Bowden the other day, sticks to his decision. Only, this time, it is out. where is the consistency? guy was miles down the pitch, and hawkeye showed that it was hitting leg. if u apply the rules of DRS, shouldnt this be not out? adulteration of technology,indeed

You've answered your question. The consistency is in the fact that in both the cases, the umpires stuck to their initial decisions, when given a choice. In the Ian Bell case, the umpire judged not out and when the DRS was called in and the TV umpire informed the ground umpire that it was beyond 2.5m. That is what the DRS does. It checks for no ball and the 2.5m rule and then informs the ground umpires. After that it is left to the discretion of the ground umpire. Here, the umpire stuck to his decision. Basically, unless there is an overwhelming push from TV umpire/evidence, no umpire is going to go against his own initial ruling. Or at least I think so. How do I know all this? My boss talked about this rubbish the entire evening. :(( Haven't seen him so animated even when he argues a case. PS: This DRS or whatever doesn't really improve the standard of umpiring. I think we have a good percentage of wrong calls. It just interrupts the game. Scrap it, I say.

[Late Cut]

Makes sense to me- technology is not accurate past 2.5 meters, hence whatever the onfield umpire decided stands. not sure what the big fuss is.

[gult]

I think the 2.5m rule is perfectly fine. However, it shouldn't be considered as a failed review in case the umpire's decision stays.

[asterix]

Watch this from 04:07 onwards..BTW it was Perth Pitch.. vpfl7MjeBcY

[yoda]

In which other sport is the predictive part of Hawk Eye used? There is no 'extra BS' even in cricket regarding the actual event part - did the ball pitch in line' date=' did it hit in line etc.[/quote'] What do you mean by "predicitve" part? Eveything Hawkeye does is prediction, whether it says ball is pitched in line or if says a Tennis serve/ground stroke is inside or beyond the line when it makes impact with the ground or whether a cricket ball is going to hit the stumps when it makes it that far. I would like to know the difference between: a) A Cricket ball hitting the stumps b) A Tennis ball hitting the serve/side line and why a) is less reliable than b). One thing I can see is that the ball pitches in a) first and then is moving as it gets to the target. Isn't hawkeye accounting for that already when it determines if the ball is even hitting in line? BTW on a different note, I have noticed only during this WC, that hawkeye seems to show less deviation than what you can see in real time or even replays (without hawkeye ofc).

[coffee_rules]

Watch this from 04:07 onwards..BTW it was Perth Pitch.. vpfl7MjeBcY#t=4m07s

You can set the time stamp in the link now and point to right time, see below link.

Somehow we can't embed this in the post.

[coffee_rules]

What do you mean by "predicitve" part? Eveything Hawkeye does is prediction, whether it says ball is pitched in line or if says a Tennis serve/ground stroke is inside or beyond the line when it makes impact with the ground or whether a cricket ball is going to hit the stumps when it makes it that far. I would like to know the difference between: a) A Cricket ball hitting the stumps b) A Tennis ball hitting the serve/side line and why a) is less reliable than b). One thing I can see is that the ball pitches in a) first and then is moving as it gets to the target. Isn't hawkeye accounting for that already when it determines if the ball is even hitting in line? BTW on a different note, I have noticed only during this WC, that hawkeye seems to show less deviation than what you can see in real time or even replays (without hawkeye ofc).

I think he meant the hawk predicting the path of the ball after the impact. There is no such thing in any other sport.

[yoda]

I think he meant the hawk predicting the path of the ball after the impact. There is no such thing in any other sport.

It does so for determining if ball hits in line as well. Why no 2.5 m rule for that?

[coffee_rules]

It does so for determining if ball hits in line as well. Why no 2.5 m rule for that?

It is guessing after the impact based on the speed, swing (wind etc) and turn. In the air, after the pitch, there is less guess work. After the impact, it is tough to say how the ball would traverse, it would probably go above the wickets or miss it with more swing than the software would predict. I think it also uses LOS for the prediction part before the impact. So, there is no line of sight after the impact, it is all pure prediction.